By Dr Vijay Kumar
University of Otago, New Zealand.
Dr Vijay Kumar is a leading figure in the research field of doctoral education, experience and pedagogy. He applies linguistics methodologies to considering doctoral writing and the relationship between candidate-author and supervisor-reviewer as to how feedback on writing works best. He offers his reflection on the acknowledgements, and the results of his research on whether or not acknowledgments influence examiners–do click on the link to his interesting article.
I am beginning to get the notion that acknowledgments humanise the examination process.
One of the first sections I read when I get a thesis to examine is the acknowledgments. I want to know the person who wrote the thesis and the journey the candidate had to go through to submit this work for examination. At times, I am affected when the candidate writes about their struggles – leaving family behind to pursue their dreams, death of loved ones, hardship while doing the PhD and also the time it took for them to submit as this may reflect financial hardship. I become extremely sympathetic reading about parents who have to balance the PhD and care for children during the journey – these struggles speak to the human side of an examiner and I expect other examiners to be the same.
When my own student’s thesis was returned with compliments on the acknowledgments, I was interested in how the examiner reconciled this knowledge of the student with the result they awarded. I was furious when a doctoral examiner was extremely critical of a single mother I knew by being picky on aspects which the other examiners commented were exemplary– I wanted to tell the examiner “She completed this as a single parent looking after two young boys – have some compassion!”.
As an examiner myself, I become very inquisitive when a candidate writes paragraphs of praise for distant relatives and merely pens 2-3 lines on the supervisor. Something must be not right – supervisors dedicate 3-4 years of their lives to mentor the candidate and yet receive so little accord for their sacrifices.
My curiosity pointed me to what should be included in an acknowledgment. One of the most prominent studies reported that acknowledgments comprise three main moves: the reflective move, the thanking move and the announcing more (see Hyland, 2004 for details and examples). However, despite a global tradition to include acknowledgements in a thesis, there was no study that provided insights as to how examiners viewed the acknowledgements.
This became a research quest; I asked myself – are doctoral examiners influenced by the acknowledgments? I certainly am. But does this impact the final outcome of the thesis? This curiosity led me to research this topic and resulted in a research project surveying 145 doctoral examiners that I describe in this paper.
Conversations with colleagues across the globe suggests that many examiners read the acknowledgments first before reading the thesis – their reasons echoing my own for reading the acknowledgments. Many say that the acknowledgements provide the context of the candidate and the journey but do not influence their judgement on the assessment of the thesis. Thus, the final outcome is purely based on the content. Some, like me, tend to be more formative in the assessment if the acknowledgments show struggles. Others, however, say that they are not at all affected by the acknowledgement – in some instances, the acknowledgments are not given any status. For example, in Japan, the acknowledgements, which are not considered as official content of a thesis, are placed after the concluding chapter as private matters are of less of a priority. It would also be a rare case that one would write a personal struggle in the acknowledgement in a Japanese PhD thesis.
What we now know is that examiners’ views are biased by the acknowledgments. That is, it’s not the acknowledgements they are suspicious of but they are influenced by them and have a biased view on the acknowledgments. Even though many claim not to be influenced by the acknowledgments, there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that they act differently after reading the acknowledgements. As an example, not mentioning the supervisors or not writing enough about the supervisors tends to be perceived as a lack of humility–the reaction to this is that the examiners tend to be less tolerant of the student’s mistakes.
On the contrary, some examines think that the supervisors should not be acknowledged at all until the successful completion of the thesis. Some examiners get irritated when names of top scholars whom the candidate probably met and chatted with at a conference are acknowledged with the hope of influencing the examiners. Some examiners questioned the role of GOD in a thesis and want scientific evidence to support claims of divine assistance! They argue that the thesis is a scientific document and anything/anyone whose contribution cannot be evidenced should not be acknowledged. Clearly, examiners read the acknowledgements and form a perception about the candidate which may influence their commentaries. If struggles are mentioned, there seems to be more formative and developmental feedback; otherwise, they tend to become less tolerant of mistakes and this may potentially mean becoming more “forensic” in examining the thesis.
Even though the examiners may be influenced, the good news is that most examiners say that the acknowledgments do not have an influence on the final outcome. A respondent captured this vividly by saying – it won’t kill a thesis but it matters!
What are your views of the acknowledgements in a thesis? Do you think it should be included only at the end of the examination process? Is it important for the examiner to know the candidate through the acknowledgement? What advice do you give to students? And if you are an examiner as well- do you discuss this at all in your role as a supervisor- or leave it entirely to your student?
References
Hyland, K. (2004). Graduates’ gratitude: The generic structure of dissertation acknowledgements. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 303–324.
Kumar, V. & Sanderson, L. J. (2019). The effects of acknowledgements in doctoral theses on examiners. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. DOI:
10.1080/14703297.2019.1620625
DoctoralWriting SIG 
Acknowledgements is the only section where a doctoral student can be subjective – and I am pleasantly happy to know that our examiners do read it.
Very few professors allow students to write their own acknowledgement section – they are reviewed too! Though its not documented, I know this from local grape wine.
As you mentioned in the article, students including top researchers from the field – happens quite a lot! Done mostly to showcase/praise the outreach of the professor and his/her clout.
Normally during our defence we dedicate time to thank everyone involved but apart from the acknowledgement in the thesis, there is no place to mention and show gratitude to the professional guidance and help received by certain stakeholders. Clearly, culture again comes into the picture!
The article certainly provides food for thought!
Interesting to note that “very few professors allow students to write their own acknowledgements”!! Is this very specific to your academic tradition in your country?
Dear Dr. Vijay
Congrats, a well-written article. Will share this with my colleagues.
Interesting points Vijay!
Shosh Leshem and I recently submitted an article on the invisible support networks of doctoral candidates and what the acknowledgement sections of doctoral theses reveal.
We analysed acknowledgment sections from completed theses in Israel and South Africa. Although some academics argue that acknowledgement sections should not form part of doctoral theses, others welcome such sections and are of the opinion that they reflect original and personal contributions, actually constituting a neglected genre. Previous research on acknowledgement texts have focused more on their linguistic characteristics as related to the academic writing of theses. Our study, however, inquired into acknowledgement sections from a social support perspective.
The aim of the study was to bring to light the dimension of the social milieu and its importance in supporting doctoral students in successfully achieving their doctorate. More specifically, it sought to investigate the role of ‘significant others’ in the academic success of doctoral students as reflected in the genres of acknowledgement in doctoral theses by analysing such texts from 30 completed doctoral theses in South Africa and Israel.
Follow-up interviews with graduates assisted to probe deeper into the meaning of the texts. Although limited in nature, the study found that, based on who doctoral graduates acknowledge, several role-players and supporters seem to contribute to doctoral success. This include family members, friends, colleagues, study supervisors, funders and university administrators. What also became clear was that doctoral candidates rely mainly on psycho-social forms of support and that particular kinds of such support are crucial at different stages of the doctoral journey.
Acknowledgement studies confirm the doctoral research process as an activity stream that integrates the personal, the interpersonal and the institutional to reveal the mostly hidden, but very important, influences on the doctorate.
This is an excellent article which encourages Ph.D. examiners to relinquish objective judgment of the candidate’s performance. To me personally, a Ph.D. thesis is not the end of term exam or timed test, but a long journey of learning, experiences, and transformation. To be able to evaluate that transformation in a candidate, it is essential to consider events that have occurred outside the thesis topics and how they have contributed to shaping the thesis. I hope to read more on this topic in future.
Dear Vijay,
Thank you very much for sharing your valuable knowledge and experience! Your points are very insightful, especially since they reflect the different values between different cultures.
In Japan, my impression is that we don’t have much open discussions about the acknowledgement part of the thesis, since the format is usually already decided by the institute, the department, or the supervisor. Also, acknowledgements are generally inserted after the examination, which implies that this particular part of the thesis is officially handled as a section that does not (and perhaps, commonly agreed, “should not”) influence the evaluation process at all.
The biggest difference I find interesting is, as you mention, is the place where the acknowledgement is inserted in the thesis. While it is placed in the beginning part of the thesis in your culture, indeed, the acknowledgement is placed after the Conclusion, generally, either before the Appendix, or the Reference in our Japanese PhD thesis.
As you say, it is rare that personal struggles are mentioned in the Japanese PhD thesis for acknowledgements are considered like an “official announcement place” in which the people who have cooperated in the thesis are mentioned from the highest degree to the lowest degree of involvement. Here, if the family or friends are to be mentioned, they will appear towards the end of the list after the supervisors, colleagues etc. It appears that it is not rare that families are not mentioned in this section with the mind that the immeasurable “thank you to families and/or friends” are naturally there without question for any PhD candidate.
Your blog has given me the precious opportunity to reflect the meaning of this part of the thesis because though it is not a part of the evaluation of the thesis itself in our culture, I believe, indeed, it “does matter” in pumping the last drop of blood into the work to make it alive and shine!
Dear Vijay,
Thank you very much for sharing your valuable knowledge and experience!
Your blog was very inspiring in that it reflected the different values in different cultures.
In Japan, my impression is that we don’t have much open discussion about the acknowledgement part since the format is generally already decided by the institute, department or the supervisor. Also, the acknowledgement section is usually only inserted after the examination, which implies that it is does not (or perhaps, is commonly considered “should not”) influence the evaluation process.
The interesting difference as you point out is the place where the acknowledgement is inserted in a thesis. While in your culture, it is placed in the beginning part of the thesis, it is inserted after the conclusion, either before appendixes or the reference in our culture.
It appears that the acknowledgement section in our culture is considered as an “official announcement place” in which to list in order the people that had cooperated in the thesis from the highest involvement to the less involvement (usually beginning with the main supervisor, sub-supervisor, then, colleagues etc), and a place to highlight the funding source(s) if any.
Your blog has provided me the precious opportunity to reflect on the importance of this part of the thesis, since, though generally not in the evaluation process in our culture, I believe that it does indeed “matter” in pumping the last drop of blood into the work to make it alive and shine!
I have read your text with a curiosity and tried to reflect on my experiences. I would say that acknowledgements can be really sensitive on the part of a student. They feel emotional at the end, sometimes also overwhelmed or even calculating their future options…
Few comments go through my mind: I guess you could categorize objects in acknowledgements in some groups: family (and friends), mentors (supervisors) and staff at the University (at least in Slovenia it could be very collaborative sometimes), VIP (important experts, public person, artists… who would perhaps feel flattered or are used to impress the examiners), God.
When I read the acknowledgments I ask myself what is the aim of the student? They probably want to express gratitude to family and friends for supporting them in their journey. I would say that sometimes saying thank you in the acknowledgments is really important for certain group of people. On the other hand I ask myself sometime why students spend so much time thanking to their mentors– they are written on the thesis, everyone knows that they have contributed significantly and it is part of their job. This is why they (we) are there for. But parents and partners are not visible anywhere else.
Also, it is of a symbolic value for some categories: my supervisor has made it very official and very clear that I would be in his acknowledgements for helping him with the book. I know that this is a great honor for me (I was really just a young master student at that time) in he knew it too so he would always tell that in public and when he would present me to some people (that my name is in the acknowledgements). This was his way of saying »thank you«. And I never thought I needed it, I thought of my contribution not as of a way of helping him but as opportunity to learn from him (so benefit for me).
I firmly believe that culture affects the way we read the acknowledgements and the way the acknowledgment affect our examination process. Slovenian culture (and central Europe) is perhaps more introvertive and harsh and it doesn’t take showing of the emotions to well. It would be interesting to do an inquiry in my University about the acknowledgments
As a Ph.D. candidate my chair advice when it came to acknowledgment page was to show emotion. My chair, who actually reads the acknowledgment page said she learned about my journey through the acknowledgment page. For example the person who has been biggest supporter throughout the process received a full page, whereas my committee received a paragraph. The page showed her who I really turn to, instead of my committee when things were going good and bad. It also gave insight into why I am pursuing the Ph.D in the first place. For me personally the acknowledge page was a way for me to reflect on the journey and give credit to the individuals who have helped me along the way, such as my program director, my cohort and my friends who never get credit for what they do. For me it is a way to say thank you to the people who supported me on the journey.